Cybereagles

Kabalega wrote:

jette1 wrote:

Kabalega wrote:

chief nfachairman wrote:No defending this dude. I was a 100% behind him to get the Eagles Job. But why has Oliseh always had issues with players, management and probably balls boys sef. Right from when he was a player.

IF several people keep saying the samething about you, then you need to check yourself. He certainly has a major personality problem.

LEts stop all these nonsense blind support for him on this thread. He has been suspended by his employers. Hes now gone on twitter and made some very serious allegations that would now definitely turn his suspension to sack and probably earn him a lawsuit.

Dude needs to Fvvcking grow up!!!

I will say it again.
Sunday Oliseh is a genius!
He is not a “follow follow “ kind of guy but a trailblazer of some kind.

Individuals with small minds don’t get him!

how well you handle relationship challenges is the modern measure of emotional stability

It’s not new that’s why you see many CE folks steeped in African cultures support your POV.
What you ignore is the fact that the modern measure of emotional stability is inaccurate, and subjective.

The context matters a lot. So does individual and collective bias.

You couldn't be more wrong; regardless of context or subjectivity Ultimately when you blow your tops you essentially lose all sympathies, you fail the resilience capacity test & leadership credibility. talk about the bias ? - you fulfill their prophesy.

zee wrote:

txj wrote:

Cellular wrote:

txj wrote:

1naija wrote:He needs help. This behavior has trailed him everywhere he went. From head-butting in Dortmund to fighing everybody as player and then Captain of SE to fighting everybody at the NFF, to this. It can't all be someone else's fault. He needs anger management or therapy or both.

Here you are, a Nigerian football fan, a black man...

But you are citing as evidence of Oliseh's failures, his reaction to being racially abused...

Some of you are unbelievable!

He attacked his own teammate.

That is at a minimum, assault. Could have impacted his future (ability to land a job) had the player pressed charges.

There are proper ways to go about dealing with issues.

We have plenty of our black people locked up because they can't check their emotions. That incident is not one he or anyone should be proud of.

You appear more concerned about the fate of Moeller than the racial assault on Oliseh?

Ever wonder why he Moeller did not press charges?

Ever wonder why he went on to play for Ajax even after the incident?

What the hell are you spurting? What has Moeller got to do with Oliseh's headbutt?
BTW, the headbutting happened at Bochum and Moeller NEVER played for Bochum.

Yes, while on loan at Bochum and racially abused by Vahid Hasheman.

But it doesn't change the fundamental issue

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:Txj,

Thank you for noting your error in imputing, wrongfully, the earlier claim that I had ruled on the credibility of his story. That is very important.

Now, on the issue of which my focus lies -- intentionality. There is no reason not to focus on intentionality or even on the issue of a pattern of behavior that many have also addressed. It is your choice to focus on issues of credibility but that does not mean that all of us should focus on credibility. It is a choice that you make, and others certainly should be free to decide on which issue that they should focus. There is no overlord that decides what people should focus or not focus on. The space and fora for discussion, I believe, is free and open.

Oliseh is a public figure and his utterances are of great importance. I will not focus on an alleged crime for which I have no evidence to prove whether a crime was committed or not. I will not speculate on that. However, I can definitely discuss intentionality because not only can I link to a positive motive for the act but the motives are multiple (if you can identify them, I hope). Further, I can also predict their effect through years of studying similar concepts. That much I am confident in doing.

While you didn't rule on credibility, you did in fact totally ignore it, to the sole focus on intentionality, which is an analysis of the mind of Oliseh in this case. Not only do you not have proof of his intent, but I'm unaware what qualification you have to render judgement on the state of mind of a person from a post on twitter!

It becomes even more curious when one weighs the import of the allegation of crime as compared to use of the word foreign...

Txj,

As I noted, thanks for moving away from credibility which is of no interest to me. If you are interested in discussing that, then do so with those interested. Thanks.

On the issue of intentionality: That is my interest. I wish to note that intentionality is researched and widely discussed. It is hardly EVER based on proof in any research that I am aware of. The threshold for examining intentionality or its motive is based on its plausibility, supported by cited and reasonable circumstances. None of those amount to proof and neither is proof required.

If you wish to discuss those, then lets do so.

It is not based on proof.

So it is based on plausibility.

It is plausible that the earth is indeed flat.

Dude, stop with this rubbish!!!

Txj,

If you do not realize that the research that you read, using qualitative methods, is 100% based on plausibility, then I cannot help you. No qualitative research anywhere in the world is based on anything but plausibility.

Even the quantitative research from which medication and medical knowledge and the like are derived are rarely based on anything called "proof." Be aware of that today. Those, all of them, are based on certain possibility of error. I am surprised that you are unaware of that. The basic knowledge that you learn about generating hypothesis or research questions is never use the word "proof." The appropriate word is to seek support for or to seek confirmation.

In any case, a study on Oliseh's motives and intentionality is definitely acceptable via the use of plausibility. If you are looking for proof, I am sorry you will never find any. Even if you talk to Oliseh how are you sure that he will tell you the truth as per his motives?

Enugu II wrote:Txj,

If you do not realize that the research that you read, using qualitative methods, is 100% based on plausibility, then I cannot help you. No qualitative research anywhere in the world is based on anything but plausibility.

Even the quantitative research from which medication and medical knowledge and the like are derived are rarely based on anything called "proof." Be aware of that today. Those, all of them, are based on certain possibility of error. I am surprised that you are unaware of that. The basic knowledge that you learn about generating hypothesis or research questions is never use the word "proof." The appropriate word is to seek support for or to seek confirmation.

In any case, a study on Oliseh's motives and intentionality is definitely acceptable via the use of plausibility. If you are looking for proof, I am sorry you will never find any. Even if you talk to Oliseh how are you sure that he will tell you the truth as per his motives?

I'm quite familiar with scientific methodology, than you.

I know you cannot judge Oliseh's intent from a twitter post with any acceptable degree of confidence.

You can of course do so as junk science...and on an internet forum, it is certainly plausible.

Heck, the earth is plausibly square on the internet!

Wake me up when you decide to get serious!

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:Txj,

If you do not realize that the research that you read, using qualitative methods, is 100% based on plausibility, then I cannot help you. No qualitative research anywhere in the world is based on anything but plausibility.

Even the quantitative research from which medication and medical knowledge and the like are derived are rarely based on anything called "proof." Be aware of that today. Those, all of them, are based on certain possibility of error. I am surprised that you are unaware of that. The basic knowledge that you learn about generating hypothesis or research questions is never use the word "proof." The appropriate word is to seek support for or to seek confirmation.

In any case, a study on Oliseh's motives and intentionality is definitely acceptable via the use of plausibility. If you are looking for proof, I am sorry you will never find any. Even if you talk to Oliseh how are you sure that he will tell you the truth as per his motives?

I'm quite familiar with scientific methodology, than you.

I know you cannot judge Oliseh's intent from a twitter post with any acceptable degree of confidence.

You can of course do so as junk science...and on an internet forum, it is certainly plausible.

Heck, the earth is plausibly square on the internet!

Wake me up when you decide to get serious!

Bros,

I am certain that you do not understand scientific methodology. If you did, then it should not have been a surprise to you that conclusions are based on plausibility in the use of not one but multiple methods that involve a variety of data collection methods. The fact that you are unaware of this creates a major doubt on the depth of your knowledge about research methods which I teach, BTW.

Now you assume that studying Oliseh's twitter covers the scope from which data is drawn to reach a conclusion is yet a lack of understanding on what happens here. What you need to do is to ask exactly how the study is done and not simply assume. That simple question, no matter how humbling, may actually lead to illuminating how this is done and the result may well surprise you. Currently, your feverish attempt to defend Oliseh prevents you from learning more even when that lesson may well present a much more robust defense of Oliseh himself.

Oliseh is the Nigerian Bielsa. Great coach with a shitty temperament.

Enugu II wrote:

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:Txj,

If you do not realize that the research that you read, using qualitative methods, is 100% based on plausibility, then I cannot help you. No qualitative research anywhere in the world is based on anything but plausibility.

Even the quantitative research from which medication and medical knowledge and the like are derived are rarely based on anything called "proof." Be aware of that today. Those, all of them, are based on certain possibility of error. I am surprised that you are unaware of that. The basic knowledge that you learn about generating hypothesis or research questions is never use the word "proof." The appropriate word is to seek support for or to seek confirmation.

In any case, a study on Oliseh's motives and intentionality is definitely acceptable via the use of plausibility. If you are looking for proof, I am sorry you will never find any. Even if you talk to Oliseh how are you sure that he will tell you the truth as per his motives?

I'm quite familiar with scientific methodology, than you.

I know you cannot judge Oliseh's intent from a twitter post with any acceptable degree of confidence.

You can of course do so as junk science...and on an internet forum, it is certainly plausible.

Heck, the earth is plausibly square on the internet!

Wake me up when you decide to get serious!

Bros,

I am certain that you do not understand scientific methodology. If you did, then it should not have been a surprise to you that conclusions are based on plausibility in the use of not one but multiple methods that involve a variety of data collection methods. The fact that you are unaware of this creates a major doubt on the depth of your knowledge about research methods which I teach, BTW.

Now you assume that studying Oliseh's twitter covers the scope from which data is drawn to reach a conclusion is yet a lack of understanding on what happens here. What you need to do is to ask exactly how the study is done and not simply assume. That simple question, no matter how humbling, may actually lead to illuminating how this is done and the result may well surprise you. Currently, your feverish attempt to defend Oliseh prevents you from learning more even when that lesson may well present a much more robust defense of Oliseh himself.

First up, I'm not defending Oliseh. I am wondering why there is such a definitive conclusion in a manner that ostensibly eliminates any benefit of doubt in his favor.

Secondly, my questioning of the plausibility of your methodology, is based on the confidence limit that one could objectively assign to, based on how flimsy it is.

I understand research methodology. I am published in it, and in peer reviewed journals to boot.

To pass the conclusions you have reached on intent, based on Oliseh's tweet, as evidence of any sort of scientific rigor, has to be a joke! An absurd joke!

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:Txj,

If you do not realize that the research that you read, using qualitative methods, is 100% based on plausibility, then I cannot help you. No qualitative research anywhere in the world is based on anything but plausibility.

Even the quantitative research from which medication and medical knowledge and the like are derived are rarely based on anything called "proof." Be aware of that today. Those, all of them, are based on certain possibility of error. I am surprised that you are unaware of that. The basic knowledge that you learn about generating hypothesis or research questions is never use the word "proof." The appropriate word is to seek support for or to seek confirmation.

In any case, a study on Oliseh's motives and intentionality is definitely acceptable via the use of plausibility. If you are looking for proof, I am sorry you will never find any. Even if you talk to Oliseh how are you sure that he will tell you the truth as per his motives?

I'm quite familiar with scientific methodology, than you.

I know you cannot judge Oliseh's intent from a twitter post with any acceptable degree of confidence.

You can of course do so as junk science...and on an internet forum, it is certainly plausible.

Heck, the earth is plausibly square on the internet!

Wake me up when you decide to get serious!

Bros,

I am certain that you do not understand scientific methodology. If you did, then it should not have been a surprise to you that conclusions are based on plausibility in the use of not one but multiple methods that involve a variety of data collection methods. The fact that you are unaware of this creates a major doubt on the depth of your knowledge about research methods which I teach, BTW.

Now you assume that studying Oliseh's twitter covers the scope from which data is drawn to reach a conclusion is yet a lack of understanding on what happens here. What you need to do is to ask exactly how the study is done and not simply assume. That simple question, no matter how humbling, may actually lead to illuminating how this is done and the result may well surprise you. Currently, your feverish attempt to defend Oliseh prevents you from learning more even when that lesson may well present a much more robust defense of Oliseh himself.

First up, I'm not defending Oliseh. I am wondering why there is such a definitive conclusion in a manner that ostensibly eliminates any benefit of doubt in his favor.

Secondly, my questioning of the plausibility of your methodology, is based on the confidence limit that one could objectively assign to, based on how flimsy it is.

I understand research methodology. I am published in it, and in peer reviewed journals to boot.

To pass the conclusions you have reached on intent, based on Oliseh's tweet, as evidence of any sort of scientific rigor, has to be a joke! An absurd joke!

Txj,

You certainly appear that you are defending him by making several spurious claims. For instance, you input irrationality to the points made by several other CE members who have posted on this issue. Yet those members have cited and provided reasons for their position and those reasons are logically rational and, thus, the claim of irrationality is from a position where an opposing view is rejected because it does not conform to your own views. Note that it is possible that others can hold rational views even when they do not conform to yours.

Further, you appear unable to realize that there are several issues here and that members have chosen to focus on issues of their particular interest. Those interests are varied and they are multiple. There is no one issue that trumps the other. Your insistence that your own issue of interest trumps other considerations is quite problematic.

Now coming to the issue of methodology, I remain surprised at your claims. You do realize that there are two general types of methods -- quantitative and qualitative. Your position on this leads me to believe that your knowledge is limited to quantitative methods and to not a very clear understanding of its merits or its limitations. As for qualitative methods, you show absolutely no understanding on what it is and knowledge of specific methods under that genre.

That you have published via peer review is not particularly earth-shaking. I have published several pieces via peer review, not just journal articles but books and a college textbook. I currently edit (i.e serve as Editor-In-Chief) of a peer-reviewed journal where several of the world's leading intercultural communication scholars frequently send manuscripts for review. Further, I instruct Ph.D. students on scientific methodologies. Thus, I know in-depth, what I write about when the issues pertain to scientific methods for research.

As I said, if you wish to know how the Oliseh issue (i.e. motives of his intentionality) can be done, make the request. I will not provide the way until a humble request is made but be rest assured that motives of his intention can be studied without a need to consult Oliseh. By the way, so also can one study any text for meaning without the subject calling you on a phone to tell you want they mean. Thus, there is absolutely no need to call Oliseh to interview him before unpacking meaning from his text and relevant data. And such a study, if well articulated and written can be published in appropriate peer-reviewed publications.

Just listening to him on Brilla and here are a few of my take away.
1. He is being owed and that's the crux of the matter.
2. The club started asking players on the bench to sign statements saying they couldn't work with him and this divided the dressing room and led to recent poor run.
3. Think he has been advised and didn't say anything bad and thanked them for giving him the opportunity to serve.
4. He is very optimistic over the SE chances in Russia.

Enugu II wrote:

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:Txj,

If you do not realize that the research that you read, using qualitative methods, is 100% based on plausibility, then I cannot help you. No qualitative research anywhere in the world is based on anything but plausibility.

Even the quantitative research from which medication and medical knowledge and the like are derived are rarely based on anything called "proof." Be aware of that today. Those, all of them, are based on certain possibility of error. I am surprised that you are unaware of that. The basic knowledge that you learn about generating hypothesis or research questions is never use the word "proof." The appropriate word is to seek support for or to seek confirmation.

In any case, a study on Oliseh's motives and intentionality is definitely acceptable via the use of plausibility. If you are looking for proof, I am sorry you will never find any. Even if you talk to Oliseh how are you sure that he will tell you the truth as per his motives?

I'm quite familiar with scientific methodology, than you.

I know you cannot judge Oliseh's intent from a twitter post with any acceptable degree of confidence.

You can of course do so as junk science...and on an internet forum, it is certainly plausible.

Heck, the earth is plausibly square on the internet!

Wake me up when you decide to get serious!

Bros,

I am certain that you do not understand scientific methodology. If you did, then it should not have been a surprise to you that conclusions are based on plausibility in the use of not one but multiple methods that involve a variety of data collection methods. The fact that you are unaware of this creates a major doubt on the depth of your knowledge about research methods which I teach, BTW.

Now you assume that studying Oliseh's twitter covers the scope from which data is drawn to reach a conclusion is yet a lack of understanding on what happens here. What you need to do is to ask exactly how the study is done and not simply assume. That simple question, no matter how humbling, may actually lead to illuminating how this is done and the result may well surprise you. Currently, your feverish attempt to defend Oliseh prevents you from learning more even when that lesson may well present a much more robust defense of Oliseh himself.

First up, I'm not defending Oliseh. I am wondering why there is such a definitive conclusion in a manner that ostensibly eliminates any benefit of doubt in his favor.

Secondly, my questioning of the plausibility of your methodology, is based on the confidence limit that one could objectively assign to, based on how flimsy it is.

I understand research methodology. I am published in it, and in peer reviewed journals to boot.

To pass the conclusions you have reached on intent, based on Oliseh's tweet, as evidence of any sort of scientific rigor, has to be a joke! An absurd joke!

Txj,

You certainly appear that you are defending him by making several spurious claims. For instance, you input irrationality to the points made by several other CE members who have posted on this issue. Yet those members have cited and provided reasons for their position and those reasons are logically rational and, thus, the claim of irrationality is from a position where an opposing view is rejected because it does not conform to your own views. Note that it is possible that others can hold rational views even when they do not conform to yours.

Further, you appear unable to realize that there are several issues here and that members have chosen to focus on issues of their particular interest. Those interests are varied and they are multiple. There is no one issue that trumps the other. Your insistence that your own issue of interest trumps other considerations is quite problematic.

Now coming to the issue of methodology, I remain surprised at your claims. You do realize that there are two general types of methods -- quantitative and qualitative. Your position on this leads me to believe that your knowledge is limited to quantitative methods and to not a very clear understanding of its merits or its limitations. As for qualitative methods, you show absolutely no understanding on what it is and knowledge of specific methods under that genre.

That you have published via peer review is not particularly earth-shaking. I have published several pieces via peer review, not just journal articles but books and a college textbook. I currently edit (i.e serve as Editor-In-Chief) of a peer-reviewed journal where several of the world's leading intercultural communication scholars frequently send manuscripts for review. Further, I instruct Ph.D. students on scientific methodologies. Thus, I know in-depth, what I write about when the issues pertain to scientific methods for research.

As I said, if you wish to know how the Oliseh issue (i.e. motives of his intentionality) can be done, make the request. I will not provide the way until a humble request is made but be rest assured that motives of his intention can be studied without a need to consult Oliseh. By the way, so also can one study any text for meaning without the subject calling you on a phone to tell you want they mean. Thus, there is absolutely no need to call Oliseh to interview him before unpacking meaning from his text and relevant data. And such a study, if well articulated and written can be published in appropriate peer-reviewed publications.

This is 'txj' to a t!

See egomaniacs trying too hard to impress each other over nonsense

imehjunior wrote:Just listening to him on Brilla and here are a few of my take away.
1. He is being owed and that's the crux of the matter.
2. The club started asking players on the bench to sign statements saying they couldn't work with him and this divided the dressing room and led to recent poor run.
3. Think he has been advised and didn't say anything bad and thanked them for giving him the opportunity to serve.
4. He is very optimistic over the SE chances in Russia.

So he is no longer citing illegality? Hmm

Kabalega wrote:

chief nfachairman wrote:No defending this dude. I was a 100% behind him to get the Eagles Job. But why has Oliseh always had issues with players, management and probably balls boys sef. Right from when he was a player.

IF several people keep saying the samething about you, then you need to check yourself. He certainly has a major personality problem.

LEts stop all these nonsense blind support for him on this thread. He has been suspended by his employers. Hes now gone on twitter and made some very serious allegations that would now definitely turn his suspension to sack and probably earn him a lawsuit.

Dude needs to Fvvcking grow up!!!

I will say it again.
Sunday Oliseh is a genius!
He is not a “follow follow “ kind of guy but a trailblazer of some kind.

Individuals with small minds don’t get him!

Being a genius does not stop him from being flawed.

pajimoh wrote:Make Una blow grammar all Una want, Oliseh has issues with man management. The guy has issues with players in the SE and walked out on those who believed in him and on a country in expectation.
He was given an opportunity abroad. A platform to prove what happened to him at international level was the result of an African Footballing body and players unable to meet his professional standards.
A few months down the line, the Europeans are suspending him and for what reason? ....Deja vu....

The all too familiar"we can't work with him" citing players, staff and management - an impression of a terror in the corridors.....
Cue another classic repost - " they wanted me to do some illegality" that is probably euphemism for "white spiritual attacks"

Kabalega wrote:

chief nfachairman wrote:No defending this dude. I was a 100% behind him to get the Eagles Job. But why has Oliseh always had issues with players, management and probably balls boys sef. Right from when he was a player.

IF several people keep saying the samething about you, then you need to check yourself. He certainly has a major personality problem.

LEts stop all these nonsense blind support for him on this thread. He has been suspended by his employers. Hes now gone on twitter and made some very serious allegations that would now definitely turn his suspension to sack and probably earn him a lawsuit.

Dude needs to Fvvcking grow up!!!

I will say it again.
Sunday Oliseh is a genius!
He is not a “follow follow “ kind of guy but a trailblazer of some kind.

Individuals with small minds don’t get him!

Is that an euphemism for 'mad'?

AOLFootball is claiming the said illegality is match-fixing by the club's Turkish owners.
But the report cites an unnamed 'associate' of Oliseh as its source.

http://aoifootball.com/2018/02/15/exclu ... ity-claim/

imehjunior wrote:Just listening to him on Brilla and here are a few of my take away.
1. He is being owed and that's the crux of the matter.
2. The club started asking players on the bench to sign statements saying they couldn't work with him and this divided the dressing room and led to recent poor run.
3. Think he has been advised and didn't say anything bad and thanked them for giving him the opportunity to serve.
4. He is very optimistic over the SE chances in Russia.

But he never congratulated or spoke on the team. Only now

osita wrote:

imehjunior wrote:Just listening to him on Brilla and here are a few of my take away.
1. He is being owed and that's the crux of the matter.
2. The club started asking players on the bench to sign statements saying they couldn't work with him and this divided the dressing room and led to recent poor run.
3. Think he has been advised and didn't say anything bad and thanked them for giving him the opportunity to serve.
4. He is very optimistic over the SE chances in Russia.

But he never congratulated or spoke on the team. Only now

Well his schedule has freed up, no be so?

I am super sad about all this. Very unwelcome and unfortunate.
I am partial to Oliseh. With him, I am partisan and biased. With
the information available so far, even with his well known and
oft repeated antecedents here, I do not see much to blame Oliseh
for.

Whatever might be the case, he has distinguished himself. There
will be other opportunities.

Godspeed and even greater success to him in the future.

Ebyboy wrote:I am super sad about all this. Very unwelcome and unfortunate.
I am partial to Oliseh. With him, I am partisan and biased. With
the information available so far, even with his well known and
oft repeated antecedents here, I do not see much to blame Oliseh
for.

Whatever might be the case, he has distinguished himself. There
will be other opportunities.

Godspeed and even greater success to him in the future.

Let's be honest, unless we are suing a very mediocre yardstick, Oliseh has not DISTINGUISHED himself. He's had 2 gigs and both end up flat. He quit the Super Eagles when he was tasked with taking them to the AFCON.
He's now been let go from his current job when the season is at a crucial stage. Not getting your team over the line cannot easily be classed as "Distinguished".
He's done OK at best but more like flatters to deceive.

Enugu II wrote:

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:

txj wrote:

Enugu II wrote:Txj,

If you do not realize that the research that you read, using qualitative methods, is 100% based on plausibility, then I cannot help you. No qualitative research anywhere in the world is based on anything but plausibility.

Even the quantitative research from which medication and medical knowledge and the like are derived are rarely based on anything called "proof." Be aware of that today. Those, all of them, are based on certain possibility of error. I am surprised that you are unaware of that. The basic knowledge that you learn about generating hypothesis or research questions is never use the word "proof." The appropriate word is to seek support for or to seek confirmation.

In any case, a study on Oliseh's motives and intentionality is definitely acceptable via the use of plausibility. If you are looking for proof, I am sorry you will never find any. Even if you talk to Oliseh how are you sure that he will tell you the truth as per his motives?

I'm quite familiar with scientific methodology, than you.

I know you cannot judge Oliseh's intent from a twitter post with any acceptable degree of confidence.

You can of course do so as junk science...and on an internet forum, it is certainly plausible.

Heck, the earth is plausibly square on the internet!

Wake me up when you decide to get serious!

Bros,

I am certain that you do not understand scientific methodology. If you did, then it should not have been a surprise to you that conclusions are based on plausibility in the use of not one but multiple methods that involve a variety of data collection methods. The fact that you are unaware of this creates a major doubt on the depth of your knowledge about research methods which I teach, BTW.

Now you assume that studying Oliseh's twitter covers the scope from which data is drawn to reach a conclusion is yet a lack of understanding on what happens here. What you need to do is to ask exactly how the study is done and not simply assume. That simple question, no matter how humbling, may actually lead to illuminating how this is done and the result may well surprise you. Currently, your feverish attempt to defend Oliseh prevents you from learning more even when that lesson may well present a much more robust defense of Oliseh himself.

First up, I'm not defending Oliseh. I am wondering why there is such a definitive conclusion in a manner that ostensibly eliminates any benefit of doubt in his favor.

Secondly, my questioning of the plausibility of your methodology, is based on the confidence limit that one could objectively assign to, based on how flimsy it is.

I understand research methodology. I am published in it, and in peer reviewed journals to boot.

To pass the conclusions you have reached on intent, based on Oliseh's tweet, as evidence of any sort of scientific rigor, has to be a joke! An absurd joke!

Txj,

You certainly appear that you are defending him by making several spurious claims. For instance, you input irrationality to the points made by several other CE members who have posted on this issue. Yet those members have cited and provided reasons for their position and those reasons are logically rational and, thus, the claim of irrationality is from a position where an opposing view is rejected because it does not conform to your own views. Note that it is possible that others can hold rational views even when they do not conform to yours.

Further, you appear unable to realize that there are several issues here and that members have chosen to focus on issues of their particular interest. Those interests are varied and they are multiple. There is no one issue that trumps the other. Your insistence that your own issue of interest trumps other considerations is quite problematic.

Now coming to the issue of methodology, I remain surprised at your claims. You do realize that there are two general types of methods -- quantitative and qualitative. Your position on this leads me to believe that your knowledge is limited to quantitative methods and to not a very clear understanding of its merits or its limitations. As for qualitative methods, you show absolutely no understanding on what it is and knowledge of specific methods under that genre.

That you have published via peer review is not particularly earth-shaking. I have published several pieces via peer review, not just journal articles but books and a college textbook. I currently edit (i.e serve as Editor-In-Chief) of a peer-reviewed journal where several of the world's leading intercultural communication scholars frequently send manuscripts for review. Further, I instruct Ph.D. students on scientific methodologies. Thus, I know in-depth, what I write about when the issues pertain to scientific methods for research.

As I said, if you wish to know how the Oliseh issue (i.e. motives of his intentionality) can be done, make the request. I will not provide the way until a humble request is made but be rest assured that motives of his intention can be studied without a need to consult Oliseh. By the way, so also can one study any text for meaning without the subject calling you on a phone to tell you want they mean. Thus, there is absolutely no need to call Oliseh to interview him before unpacking meaning from his text and relevant data. And such a study, if well articulated and written can be published in appropriate peer-reviewed publications.

Thanks for the offer, including the condescending attitude, but I'm quite confident in my knowledge of research methodology and continued use of it, both in analytical work and day to day practical use.

There's a reason quantitative methods rank much higher than qualitative methods. What I have not done here is dispute the use of qualitative methods. I have simply questioned the confidence limits that can be assigned to an analysis of Oliseh's intent from mere twitter post...All the sophistry in the world cannot diminish this one bit!

It is irrational that a CE member would cite as evidence of Oliseh's failures his reaction to being racially abused. It is irrational that a CE member would cite evidence of Oliseh's failures by citing his decision to quit the SE without recognition of the clear ineptitude of the NFF. It is irrational for a CE member to cite the commotion in 2002 in the SE camp without recognition of the failures of the NFF. That is irrational thinking fueled by bias against Oliseh.

It is curious that in a post by SO alleging criminal intent on the side of the club that your sole interest is on the intent behind his use of the word foreign. Sure it is ur right to choose what to focus on, as is my right to point to the curious nature of ur choice.

I haven't defended Oliseh at any point on the substantial issue. I have merely been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until the full story unfolds.

The complete unwillingness of folks here to give him any benefit of the doubt is itself evidence of irrationality in the reaction of CE towards any issue affecting SO.

pajimoh wrote:

Ebyboy wrote:I am super sad about all this. Very unwelcome and unfortunate.
I am partial to Oliseh. With him, I am partisan and biased. With
the information available so far, even with his well known and
oft repeated antecedents here, I do not see much to blame Oliseh
for.

Whatever might be the case, he has distinguished himself. There
will be other opportunities.

Godspeed and even greater success to him in the future.

Let's be honest, unless we are suing a very mediocre yardstick, Oliseh has not DISTINGUISHED himself. He's had 2 gigs and both end up flat. He quit the Super Eagles when he was tasked with taking them to the AFCON.
He's now been let go from his current job when the season is at a crucial stage. Not getting your team over the line cannot easily be classed as "Distinguished".
He's done OK at best but more like flatters to deceive.

I think your 'let's be honest' is a dead giveaway.
Fortuna Sittard has racked up enough points to
earn a place in the playoffs for promotion to the
1st Division. That's probably why the owners can
dispense with Oliseh's services now that promotion
is a real and probable possibility.

Getting Fortuna from where they were to where
they are now is a remarkable achievement. There
is nothing remotely mediocre about it.

Ebyboy wrote:

pajimoh wrote:

Ebyboy wrote:I am super sad about all this. Very unwelcome and unfortunate.
I am partial to Oliseh. With him, I am partisan and biased. With
the information available so far, even with his well known and
oft repeated antecedents here, I do not see much to blame Oliseh
for.

Whatever might be the case, he has distinguished himself. There
will be other opportunities.

Godspeed and even greater success to him in the future.

Let's be honest, unless we are suing a very mediocre yardstick, Oliseh has not DISTINGUISHED himself. He's had 2 gigs and both end up flat. He quit the Super Eagles when he was tasked with taking them to the AFCON.
He's now been let go from his current job when the season is at a crucial stage. Not getting your team over the line cannot easily be classed as "Distinguished".
He's done OK at best but more like flatters to deceive.

I think your 'let's be honest' is a dead giveaway.
Fortuna Sittard has racked up enough points to
earn a place in the playoffs for promotion to the
1st Division. That's probably why the owners can
dispense with Oliseh's services now that promotion
is a real and probable possibility.

Getting Fortuna from where they were to where
they are now is a remarkable achievement. There
is nothing remotely mediocre about it.

It's a good achievement for a newbie but not Distinguished or REMARKABLE. God forbid, if Oliseh was to finish his football managerial career tomorrow, would his career be described as DISTINGUISHED or REMARKABLE?

You say my "lets be honest" is a giveaway but your "I am partial to Oliseh. With him, I am partisan and biased." is not? I'm merely stating my honest opinion without the usual partisanship of Oliseh is Nigerian and one of our own. Had he been a white or an unknown manager, I don't think you'd be using words like DISTINGUISH/REMARKABLE.

I was expecting Oliseh to win promotion for Fortuna but in football anything can happen - being placed third doesn't mean it would be so by season's end. It would have been quite an achievement had he seen them over the line